Financial firms are warning that a Department of Labor proposal designed to reduce conflicts of interest among investment advisers could hurt their ability to market and sell popular retirements products such as IRAs.
The department has been trying for several years to expand what’s known as the “fiduciary rule” setting out the relationship between investment professionals and their clients to include products such as IRAs.
The department says the expanded rule would bring greater transparency to the process. But the insurance industry warns it would limit the kind of financial advice and services it can offer, hurt small investors and raise prices.
“We’ve had concerns from Day One about this,” said John Little, senior vice president of federal affairs at the Insured Retirement Institute. “We are full-court press trying to make the department understand there are problems with this rule.”
Labor Department officials say many of the concerns are overblown, and that the rule as written provides exemptions to meet many of the concerns over compensation.
“The proposal’s goal is to ensure that potential conflicts of interest among advisers are not allowed to compromise the quality of investment advice that millions of American workers rely on so they can retire with the dignity that they have worked hard to achieve,” the department said in a statement supplied to The Washington Times.
“It is hard to believe that a rule designed to protect employers and workers from conflicted investment advice would cause the entire financial industry to voluntarily walk away from a multitrillion-dollar market,” the department said.
But Mr. Little called the rule a “solution in search of a problem.”
“The need for this rule in the first place is in question,” he said. “We’ve [asked] them to show us data that consumers are being wronged on a daily basis. They really haven’t showed us that data.”
The controversy centers on redefining the term “fiduciary.” The agency is considering expanding the term to cover firms that give advice on IRAs.
But to avoid this - and the reporting burden they say will go with it - many firms say they would consider not offering retirement advice altogether.
“For some advisers and companies, it would make it not cost-effective enough for them to do it at all,” said Lillian Vogl, counsel for federal relations at the National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors. “They might tell their advisers, ‘The compliance costs are too high for us to deal in the retirement space. We don’t want you giving retirement advice anymore.’ “
Mr. Little agreed that many retirement advisers might “exit the market.”
The rule could also have a major effect on how retirement advisers get paid. There are many advisers who charge commissions, rather than upfront fees, to make it more affordable for low-income investors. But the rule, as it was originally proposed, would not allow this.
Critics say the losers would be the smaller, lower-income savers.View Entire Story
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
Tim Devaney is a national reporter who covers business and international trade for The Washington Times. Previously, he worked for the Detroit News, Grand Rapids Press, Portland Press Herald and Bangor Daily News. Tim can be reached at email@example.com.
By Douglas Holtz-Eakin
The young drop coverage to avoid higher premiums
Independent voices from the TWT Communities
Consummate traveler Todd DeFeo explores the unique stories that make destinations worth going to.
Looking at pop culture, politics and social issues.
Political commentary and literary criticism in an era of eroding liberty
Benghazi: The anatomy of a scandal
Vietnam Memorial adds four names
Cinco de Mayo on the Mall
NRA kicks off annual convention
California wildfires wreak havoc